Translated material
Grand Prix for communication
On June 1, 2018, in Moscow, the II All -Russian Forum of Scientific Communicators was held at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. The most anticipated event of the forum was the presentation of the Prize "Communication Laboratory" for the best practices in the field of scientific communication. At the forum, scientists, journalists, representatives of business and authorities discussed the tasks and target audiences of scientific communication, talked about formats and discussed on the responsibility of the communicator to society. The forum was organized by the Association of communicators in the field of education and science (ACSOS) with the support of the RVC and the Moscow Fiztekh. The secretary of the Axon, scientific journalist Yana Pchelintseva, tells about the event .
According to the definition that Maya Horst (Maja Horst) gives in his book, the Danish sociologist and one of the most authoritative academic specialists in this area, scientific communication is explicit, organized and planned actions aimed at transmitting scientific knowledge, methodology, methods and practices in cases where the non -specialists are a significant part of the audience, says Alexandra Borisova, ”says Alexandra Borisova, - says Alexandra Borisova, - says Alexandra Borisova, - says Alexandra Borisova . Associate Professor of the St. Petersburg National Research University of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics (ITMO), one of the founders of Axon and the President of the Association elected at the forum. - If we talk easier, this is the communication of science with a society, which includes popularization, and corporate scientific PR, and civil science, and journalism. It is important that representatives of the scientific community consciously speak of their work with unlearned. In a slightly narrower sense, we are talking about the communication work of scientific organizations - universities and research institutes. This industry is new for Russia, so such events are designed to identify the best practices, share them and form a professional community. So I am even glad that we did not have enough chairs in the hall to put all the forum participants. So, this topic is relevant, it is needed and people want to discuss it. ”
In Europe or the United States, the experience of professional associations in the field of scientific communication has been calculated in decades. In our country, the first such association - the Association of communicators in the field of education and science (Axon) - appeared only two years ago. However, during this time several projects needed and continued and continued, for example, jointly with the international aggregator Eurekalert! The project to promote news from Russian institutions to the world media space created with the support of the RVC Russian-speaking scientific news aggregator “Open Science” (the TRV [1].- Ed .) And the ITMO University’s online course, an open course on scientific journalism and PR in scientific organizations, has already written about this site. And, of course, the forum of scientific communicators and the Prize "Communication Laboratory", which took place for the second time.
Cui Bono
For any emerging profession, it is important to understand in whose interests it works. If with scientific journalism it is more or less clear - like any journalism, it works for readers, then in scientific communication the system is more multicomponent. Does the scientific communicator serve exclusively the interests of scientists, or is the primary tasks of the administration that pays him a salary, or is their task in general-to supply press releases and comments in time to journalists in time? According to European norms, communicators are responsible to society, while effectively interacting with scientists, and with the media, and with leadership.
However, the degree of seriousness of this discussion at the forum was successfully reduced by Yuri Kovalev , the scientific coordinator of the Radio Astron project, the head of the laboratories to Fian and MFTI and the Chairman of the Council for Science under the Ministry of Education and Science: “When I returned to Russia about 10 years ago, here the scientists did not know why to popularize their work. In Europe, to the question “why” there is a clear answer: because we work for the money of taxpayers and we need to report to them in this way. And in Russia, scientists were sure that the financing of science (like the number of good youth in the scientific group) does not depend on popularity. In addition, there were (and continue to live) installations such as “engaging in science - our sacred right, and do not bother us” or “a real scientist does not stake to boast of the results” ... In recent years, the situation has fundamentally changed for the better. Today, there are fewer such objections, and largely thanks to those who call themselves scientific communicators, ” Kovalev admitted.
“Why should I, a scientist, help you in your work? - The professor of the faculty of social sciences of the Higher School of Economics, Vasily Klyucharyov , a participant in the discussion about the responsibility of communicators, asked himself and the audience. And then he answered: - In addition to the moral side of the question (I am responsible to taxpayers!) There is also selfish: I need good students, I need to convey the results of my work to officials who make decisions. And I need to increase my citation. True, for this you need to go beyond the Russian information space, in this sense it is not very interesting to me. ”
The director of the Institute of Problems of Information of the Russian Academy of Sciences Andrei Sobolevsky also noted that he considers not only students and officials an important part of the audience, which is aimed at the scientific communication of the institute, but also a wide audience: it is fundamentally important for him that the employees see that the institution is noticeable that they write about him and be proud.
The main problem for the scientific communicator was and remains the question of how to encourage the scientist to actively popularize, how to convince him to act as an expert, talk about a study, and take part in the talk show. Most of the speakers at the forum said that they only need to start - and gradually the researchers will get into this work, feel taste and will help the communicator or themselves will actively interact with the audience and the media.
Alena Gupaisova , the head of the press service of the MIPT, emphasized that the process of interaction between the communicator and the scientist should go constantly, without failures-otherwise the scientist may lose interest or be disappointed. Kirill Loginov , head of the atomic energy information center (Icea), noted that the personality of the scientist and the format of communication should somehow fit each other. Andrei Sobolevsky outlined the search and “upbringing” of scientists whose voice society should hear as the most important task for scientific communicators. “We, scientists, do not know how to write press releases. We poorly explain our work. Therefore, we need you, ” Yuri Kovalev turned to colleagues.
Organize yourself: session on popular science events
The most frequent “accomplice” of the scientific communicator is, of course, the media. However, as Natalya Smelykova , the head of the development of the information infrastructure of the Russian venture company, the moderator of the popular science and popular event, not always, the communicator needs a media intermediary. Sometimes direct communication with the audience is more convenient and effective. Organized measures can ensure such communication.
The Total Dictation is perhaps the most famous popular science event in Russia, which attracts tens of thousands of participants. The project is aimed at popularizing literacy and the Russian language and is one of the largest public educational projects in its field. In 2018, almost 230 thousand people from 76 countries wrote the dictation.
About how the “total dictation” from the student event turned into a world educational movement with a strong scientific basis, its leader Olga Rebkovets told: “As the project grows, we realized that we needed an expert assessment of philologists. Support for scientists gave a scientific meaningfulness to the event and made it possible to form a whole network of experts in cities. Representatives of the expert community this year were already gathering for a scientific and practical conference, which was supported by Novosibirsk State University, the Institute of Philology of the SB RAS and the Russian World Foundation. So we can say that communication first appeared in our project, and then science. ”
Few people boast of such a variety of really original events as the information center for atomic energy (ICAE) of Novosibirsk. The whole list of formats invented by Novosibirsk was presented by the head of Icea, Kirill Loginov . In addition to lectures in Barber-Shop (yes, yes!) And the readings of dramatic works about science and scientists, Novosibirsk, conduct a “trial of superheroes” and the current show “We will analyze the atoms”. During the trial of comic book stars, scientists act as lawyers and prosecutors who either justify or deny the existence of a specific superhero from the perspective of pure science.
And in the popular science current-show, “we will analyze at the atoms” in front of the eyes of the audience, a real interdisciplinary study takes place. “Three scientists act on the same topic from the point of view of their science. For example, we proposed the topic “shock”: a linguist spoke of shock vowels, physicist - about shock loads, an art critic - about percussion instruments in the orchestra, ” said Cyril.
Communication is a soft force
Of great interest was the performance by Maria Mikhaleva from the Russian Scientific Fund. In the RNF, Maria leads the public relations department. And he leads successfully, since it was the RNF press service that received a small Grand Prix in the competition “Communication Laboratory” this year.
“RNF, in fact, integrates scientific knowledge in the country. We communicate with all the players in the field of Russian science and with all the media. We work with scientists, with scientific communicators, with journalists, with our colleagues from other funds. Popularization of science is an important area of the fund's activity. For example, on the RNF website you will find the “tell us about your research” button. According to scientists in this section, we write press releases about their work, we send through the media pool. Yes, there are a lot of problems on this path: this is outdated information, and violation of the deadlines, endless coordination of the texts ... However, we try to solve all issues so that the scientists are satisfied and the journalists, ” Maria noted at the session“ The communicator as a provocateur of changes ”.
Who is who
And then the debate behind and it remains only to declare the best of the best - the winners of the Prize "Communication Laboratory". The awards were heard in three nominations, and the Grand Prix and the Small Grand Prix of the Prize were also awarded [2].
The Grand Prix received the University of ITMO, well known in the professional environment with his work to popularize science in interesting modern formats. Under the terms of the prize, the St. Petersburg university will be accepted on the 2019 forum on its site, as MFTi, the holder of the Grand Prix of last year, did this year. <...>
The team of Assson researchers analyzed the data of more than two thousand scientific and educational organizations - all those who work in this area in Russia - and evaluated their efforts in the field of external communications according to the objective parameters. <...> The Expert Council of the award includes mediocre active scientists, scientific journalists (including Boris Stern chief edges), PRARS of development institutions and high-tech enterprises and holders of a large and small Grand Prix last year. The counting of votes was studied by a scientific journalist, secretary of the Russian RAS commission to combat pseudoscience Alexander Sergeyev .
Yana Pchelintseva
1. Joseph König, Alexander Borisov. Experience in the national language // TRV-hobby, No. 226 dated April 11, 2017.
2018 winners
Nomination "Communication Laboratory":
- Department of Strategic Communications University ITMO-Grand Prix;
- NIU "Higher School of Economics" (Moscow);
- Siberian branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
The nomination "Experiment"-for the best practices in the field of offline communication:
- NIU "Higher School of Economics" (Moscow);
- Institute of Problems of Information Transfer of RAS;
- Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology.
The nomination "The effect of presence" - for the best promotion of scientists in the media:
- Siberian branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
- Krasnoyarsk Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
- Ural Federal University (Yekaterinburg).
Eureka nomination - for the best practices of a small communication team:
- Russian Scientific Fund-Small Grand Prix ;
- Institute of Problems of Information Transfer of RAS;
- Institute of Nuclear Physics SB RAS.
The nomination "Super -TECACTION" - for managing their own communication channels:
- NITU "MISIS";
- Far Eastern Federal University (Vladivostok);
- North-East Federal University (Yakutsk).